Appeal No. 2002-1732
Application No. 09/338,238
such, any argument directed to this non-existent claim limitation
is not persuasive.
In the reply brief, appellants argue that their “reference
path” is not defined by a plane but, rather, it is a line in a
plane. We find no language in claim 69 which distinguishes over
the reference path provided by the intersection of the edge of
the web of cloth with the common vertical plane in Gilbert.
Accordingly, since appellants have not convinced us of any
error in the examiner’s case, we will sustain the rejection of
claims 69-71 and 73 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Turning to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over
Toensing, the examiner’s position is that Toensing anticipates
claims 69-73 because Toensing shows a web feeding apparatus with
sensors 55 and 56 in levelers 15-17 that keep the edge of the web
at a constant position transverse to the machine direction as the
web passes through a plurality of work stations.
Again, as broadly as the invention is set forth in
independent claim 69, the examiner appears, to us, to set forth a
reasonable case regarding Toensing’s applicability to claim 69
and thus establishes a prima facie case of anticipation.
For their part, appellants repeat the same arguments made
regarding the rejection based on Gilbert. We find no basis in
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007